One of the advantages of patents is that your competitors will have to look for better alternatives. This is how innovations is expected to come with patents. However, the problem with patents now is what is called non-practicing entities.

Coupled with poor quality patents, coupled with a very high percentage that are found invalid in whole or part when challenged, coupled with the high cost to both get and keep one, coupled with. . .

The thing you forgot it that patents are only valid for a specific period of time. You are giving examples that cannot happen. Tires and shoes been around for centuries and therefore they cannot be patented. However, someone could patent a certain composite material that can be used in manufacturing shoes and tires. Or someone could patent a certain feature that makes shoes lighter or a certain tire patters that improve handling.

One of the advantages of patents is that your competitors will have to look for better alternatives. This is how innovations is expected to come with patents. However, the problem with patents now is what is called non-practicing entities.

True--and non-practicing entities should have their patents invalidated (imo). The grey area comes in start-ups and "mom-and-pops" if you would, who need lots of time to lift new ideas off the ground. For large organizations however, I really feel like they need to act or give up their rights to a respective idea (as to not inhibit another who is actually interested in doing something from moving forward.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Look again. Also, you should be as capable as anyone to use Google to perform a search.

Again, you do nothing to answer my questions. You don't even try.

Why don't you try again, and this time, tell me why patenting slide to unlock digitally is different than a physical mechanism to slide to unlock a door latch.

Why don't you try again, and this time, tell me why patenting slide to unlock digitally is different than a physical mechanism to slide to unlock a door latch.

(facepalm)

Surely you don't think this. A digital representation of a lock is completely different. If you do not understand these distinctly obvious differences, I will not take the time to describe why this is so.

Spend a few hours on www.uspto.gov and familiarize yourself with some of the basics regarding patents. Then, if the mood strikes you, take some time to learn about programming.

Surely you don't think this. A digital representation of a lock is completely different. If you do not understand these distinctly obvious differences, I will not take the time to describe why this is so.

Spend a few hours on www.uspto.gov and familiarize yourself with some of the basics regarding patents. Then, if the mood strikes you, take some time to learn about programming.

As for expecting my response to any further posts, I've blocked you.

Have a nice day.

That's nice, because I'm a software developer by trade. Go figure that I'd be up in arms about software patents, and argue about how they're generic and make no sense. Nice try, though.

You ignore both my point and the conflict. I don't really know what business you think you have in this thread if you have nothing constructive to add to it, and you aren't even willing to acknowledge the points presented.

If you know what a data structure is, then you understand how absolutely absurd how something like Apple supposedly "patenting" ideas using "data structures" is. It's as absurd as patenting a tire, a shoe, or insisting that "slide to unlock" on a digital device is any more patentable than slicking to unlock a physical door latch.

You patent complex algorithms that are business-critical. You don't (and should not be able to) patent generic, overreaching software development constructs like "use of a data structure to relay information." That's insanity. That's like patenting breathing through your mouth.

If every company litigated like Apple, one of two things would happen:

Nobody would have any electronic device, or

Patent reform would rapidly take place

Or:
3. Companies would start respecting intellectual property and not making such obvious efforts to steal others' intellectual property.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Actually, a non-practicing entity that acquires patents to license, or in some cases shut out an infringing competitor, is legal and just a part of doing business. The time-limited monopoly aspect of patents is what makes them unique and highly sought after (depending on the nature of the patent, naturally). I don't agree with the "patent troll" moniker. The important part to remember about IP is that it is property and it can be used any way the owner wishes.

Exactly. There's no such thing as a patent troll.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shidell

True--and non-practicing entities should have their patents invalidated (imo). The grey area comes in start-ups and "mom-and-pops" if you would, who need lots of time to lift new ideas off the ground. For large organizations however, I really feel like they need to act or give up their rights to a respective idea (as to not inhibit another who is actually interested in doing something from moving forward.)

I've been asking of rmonths and no one has given an explanation. Why would that be justified?

For example, let's say you own a building and don't rent it to anyone. Does that make you a real estate troll and I should be able to move into the building without permission?

Maybe you own a piece of farm land and don't farm it. Does that make you a farm troll and I should be able to plant my garden there?

Or maybe you own a second car which you don't use. By your logic, I should be able to come take the car because you're a car troll.

Patents are property. They have property rights and the owner is free to do whatever he wants with the patent. Including nothing.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Patents are supposed to protect those who are creating or implementing their idea from having that idea stolen from beneath them. However, with the logic you're suggesting we should be OK with, including doing nothing, let me ask you a hypothetical question:

Assume I patent everything and do nothing. Simply assume that I patent everything, and do absolutely nothing.

I've been asking of rmonths and no one has given an explanation. Why would that be justified?

For example, let's say you own a building and don't rent it to anyone. Does that make you a real estate troll and I should be able to move into the building without permission?

Maybe you own a piece of farm land and don't farm it. Does that make you a farm troll and I should be able to plant my garden there?

Or maybe you own a second car which you don't use. By your logic, I should be able to come take the car because you're a car troll.

Patents are property. They have property rights and the owner is free to do whatever he wants with the patent. Including nothing.

Well stated. People seem quite confused with the difference between the property aspect of IP and thoughts. Believe me, those who complain the loudest about IP are not people whose thoughts anyone is interested in stealing.

The fact of the matter is that these types of patents are insane. Ask yourself these questions:

What if Ford patented the "tire" as we know it? What if they sued every manufacturer for using that form factor, asthetic, material, etc?

Well I won't use bad words to describe your intelligence, but each of these "tire" innovations WERE patented, and became either the exclusive use of their inventor, or were licensed for real money. How do you like them road apples?

Charles Goodyearinvented vulcanized rubber in 1844 that was later used for tires.

In 1888, John Dunlopinvented the air-filled or pneumatic tires, however, his were for bicycles.

In 1911, Philip Strauss invented the first successful tire, which was a combination tire and air filled inner tube. Strauss' company the Hardman Tire & Rubber Company marketed the tires.

In 1903, P.W. Litchfield of the Goodyear Tire Company patented the first tubeless tire, however, it was never commercially exploited until the 1954 Packard.

In 1904, mountable rims were introduced that allowed drivers to fix their own flats. In 1908, Frank Seiberling invented grooved tires with improved road traction.

In 1910, B.F. Goodrich Company invented longer life tires by adding carbon to the rubber.

Goodrich also invented the first synthetic rubber tires in 1937 made of a patented substance called Chemigum.

By the way, there are also lots of patents on the "look and feel" of tires.

Why is it acceptable to slightly modify something in Public Domain and patent it? And where is the limit? There doesn't appear to be one.

In my first post I said that something like an Apple-specific music matching algorithm for iTunes is one thing, but these sorts of patents are another altogether. These types of functions are publicly known and understood fundamentally by any modern human. Sliding to unlock is a simple UI action. There's no business-specific special logic that's critical to Apple.

Why is it acceptable to slightly modify something in Public Domain and patent it? And where is the limit? There doesn't appear to be one.

In my first post I said that something like an Apple-specific music matching algorithm for iTunes is one thing, but these sorts of patents are another altogether. These types of functions are publicly known and understood fundamentally by any modern human. Sliding to unlock is a simple UI action. There's no business-specific special logic that's critical to Apple.

You have to read the patent to know why. FIrst, this was filed in 1996. Second, the patent focus on detecting structured data (phone numbers, addresses, names.. etc) and converting them to links. In HTML you will have to specify links in your code. Again.. this is based on 1996 technology.

Yes, NasserAE, but the concept of a Hyperlink is recognizing a data structure and providing an action upon recognizing it for what it is. Recognizing an HTML Hyperlink is done through tags, but recognizing a phone number can be done the same way, by interpreting the digits as such.

Hyperlinks (concept) have been around since the 60's (maybe even the 50's).

The reason Google is helping now is they now own the Motorola IP portfolio which they can license to Samsung if they like which could in turn help them win their case.

Problem with that strategy is that google has already tried that and lost. They gave 8 patents to HTC and the ITC threw all 8 patents that google gave them out. Saying that google did not have the right to do that because of the way they were given to HTC. Google basically gave HTC the right to license the patent to anyone and enforce the patent rights but somehow through the wording of the patents kept ownership. The ITC judge said that was not legal. Then he threw all 8 of those patents out. In order for HTC to use them they would have to outright own them. Which is something google is not willing to do. (give them up)

Yes, NasserAE, but the concept of a Hyperlink is recognizing a data structure and providing an action upon recognizing it for what it is. Recognizing an HTML Hyperlink is done through tags, but recognizing a phone number can be done the same way, by interpreting the digits as such.

Hyperlinks (concept) have been around since the 60's (maybe even the 50's).

Shidell, this is not hyberlink patent. This is a patent on detecting structured data (from plain text) and performing actions based on the type data. An action can making a phone call, compose an email.. etc. The first sentence is very clear on what the patent is about:

Quote:

A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data

Patents are supposed to protect those who are creating or implementing their idea from having that idea stolen from beneath them. However, with the logic you're suggesting we should be OK with, including doing nothing, let me ask you a hypothetical question:

Assume I patent everything and do nothing. Simply assume that I patent everything, and do absolutely nothing.

Physical property is different, but not in the matters that you're complaining about.

With patents, you have the right to exclusively control your invention and license it, not license it, use it, not use it, give it away, sell it, etc. Just like physical property (except with physical property, you'd probably talk about renting it rather than licensing it).

If you patent everything, you have a legal right to exercise exclusive control over your invention. What part don't you understand?

Of course, it's impossible for you to do so, so your argument is silly, aside from being moot.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Shidell, this is not hyberlink patent. This is a patent on detecting structured data (from plain text) and performing actions based on the type data. An action can making a phone call, compose an email.. etc. The first sentence is very clear on what the patent is about:

A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data

That's the text of the patent itself. A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures defined in computer data.

Part of my point is that this is so incredibly generic that it defines nothing. Because it's so broad, this also covers a Hyperlink, which is Public Domain, and has existed for over 50 years. Why are we allowing such blatantly generic (and previously existing) items to be patented?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta

Physical property is different, but not in the matters that you're complaining about.
With patents, you have the right to exclusively control your invention and license it, not license it, use it, not use it, give it away, sell it, etc. Just like physical property (except with physical property, you'd probably talk about renting it rather than licensing it).
If you patent everything, you have a legal right to exercise exclusive control over your invention. What part don't you understand?
Of course, it's impossible for you to do so, so your argument is silly, aside from being moot.

It isn't that I don't understand any of it. My point is that being able to patent something and sit on it removes innovation. Yes, my example is silly. It's supposed to be silly. If I patented everything, nobody could invent anything. Now if I patented everything and created everything, great, right? But what if I patented everything and didn't do anything with the patents? And by the nature of patents, nobody else can, because I own the patent? Now the entire US suffers because of that? That is silly.

Stepping aside from the silliness of patenting everything, patenting important or key ideas and doing nothing with them also hurts everyone. Patent trolls do this--they grab up patents and produce nothing and litigate based on them.

Hyperlinks (concept) have been around since the 60's (maybe even the 50's).

In fact the first hyperlink patent was applied for in 1976 and granted in 1989.

U.S. patent number 4,873,662, filed in the U.S. in 1976 and granted in 1989. It was filed by Desmond J. Sargent, and involved the way information is displayed on a computer terminal, and that information's relationship and interaction with material it connects to on another computer.

By the way this patent has not one thing to do with apples patent on making text link or perform actions or dial numbers.

It is described in the above patent as linking one computer with another. Through information displayed on the first computer. or a Hyperlink.

Apples patent is Patent 5,946,647: System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data.

Not linking to another computer but to perform and action on a computer generated structure. in computer generated data.

The origins of this patent go all the way back to Mac OS 6! yes that is right Mac OS 6 lol. Apple had this back then and it was not hyperlinking. Mac OS 6 was introduce in April, 1988 version 6.0. This patent was applied for in Nov 13, 1989, granted May 19, 1992.
It was first included in the Mac osX with Panther 10.3. and iOS with version3.
This patent is very old and has been renewed and updated a lot by apple.

Apples first concept of this was during the use of Mac system 5 lol.
Try to be correct in your assumptions about what a patent does and where it comes from.

It isn't that I don't understand any of it. My point is that being able to patent something and sit on it removes innovation. Yes, my example is silly. It's supposed to be silly. If I patented everything, nobody could invent anything. Now if I patented everything and created everything, great, right? But what if I patented everything and didn't do anything with the patents? And by the nature of patents, nobody else can, because I own the patent? Now the entire US suffers because of that? That is silly.

Stepping aside from the silliness of patenting everything, patenting important or key ideas and doing nothing with them also hurts everyone. Patent trolls do this--they grab up patents and produce nothing and litigate based on them.

How does that help innovation? Do you support that?

Yes. Someone who owns something should be able to do whatever they want with it.

The problem is that you are looking for examples where there might be a problem rather than seeing the big picture:

1. The entire system spurs innovation because inventors have the ability to control their invention. If exclusivity were limited in some way, there would be less incentive to invent. Essentially, property ownership rights give the inventors more incentive to create.

2. What you insist on calling 'patent trolls' have a significant purpose that spurs innovation. An inventor may not have the resources or interest in commercializing his/her invention. They may sell it to a licensing company who can find someone who is well suited to commercialize it. This serves several purposes. First, the highest bidder is likely to be the company which has the most interest in making it work. Second, the higher the amount being paid for the technology, the greater the incentive for inventors to invent new things.

3. The people you are calling patent trolls have an incentive to get the product into the market rather than sitting on it. The more successful the product is in the marketplace, the more money the patent broker makes.

Like any system, there is a possibility of abuse, but overall, the system works well - and you still haven't come up with any reason why it is intrinsically unfair. If you do, you need to explain why I can't move into a vacant building owned by a "real estate troll" or drive a car owned by a "car troll" or plant my garden in land owned by a "farm troll".

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

From the jailbreak feature, you mean? You know, the one designed by the guy who was then hired by Apple, and who was directly responsible for its inclusion in iOS 5.

FWIW, if/when Google's patent app for the notification bar is approved it probably won't matter where Apple's came from. It may still infringe ( I think most here in AI World just call it stealing. Damn where's that eye-roll smiley when you need it). But that's for some future discussion. By then there may be a cross-licensing agreement in place for all we know.

In fact the first hyperlink patent was applied for in 1976 and granted in 1989.
U.S. patent number 4,873,662, filed in the U.S. in 1976 and granted in 1989. It was filed by Desmond J. Sargent, and involved the way information is displayed on a computer terminal, and that information's relationship and interaction with material it connects to on another computer.
By the way this patent has not one thing to do with apples patent on making text link or perform actions or dial numbers.
It is described in the above patent as linking one computer with another. Through information displayed on the first computer. or a Hyperlink.
Apples patent is Patent 5,946,647: System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data.
Not linking to another computer but to perform and action on a computer generated structure. in computer generated data.
The origins of this patent go all the way back to Mac OS 6! yes that is right Mac OS 6 lol. Apple had this back then and it was not hyperlinking. Mac OS 6 was introduce in April, 1988 version 6.0. This patent was applied for in Nov 13, 1989, granted May 19, 1992.
It was first included in the Mac osX with Panther 10.3. and iOS with version3.
This patent is very old and has been renewed and updated a lot by apple.
Apples first concept of this was during the use of Mac system 5 lol.
Try to be correct in your assumptions about what a patent does and where it comes from.

The Hyperlink concept has been around since the 60's (possibly 50s). In this discussion of whether or not patents are appropriate (or even should be allowed), why would an idea that existed for 25+ years be patentable? Beyond that, the definition of both items are broad enough to define the same thing.

How many different ways can you explain "System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data."? I challenge you to try. As a hint, any piece of information on any computer is part of a data structure. Literally everything in software is part of a data structure.

This is unbelievably generic. You could argue that this patent relates to Hyperlinks, to Text Messages, to Email, to interacting with any type of file, or even utilizing an Operating System.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta

Summarized.

I think perhaps we're both taking the extreme side of patents. You're defending the perfect use case, I'm angry about the worst-case scenarios. While our current system may encourage your points, you must also concede that it allows too much negative freedom, including "patent trolling"--litigating companies with no objective to create patented material, asking for unreasonable prices, etc.

There's a reason people are angry about "patent trolling"--and a reason people want reform. I don't want to remove any of the reasons you cited for encouraging development or owning materials, but I do want to do away with the negatives that are also possible with our current system.

Stepping aside from the silliness of patenting everything, patenting important or key ideas and doing nothing with them also hurts everyone. Patent trolls do this--they grab up patents and produce nothing and litigate based on them.

How does that help innovation? Do you support that?

It allows an inventor the opportunity to sell his patents and make some money off of his invention.

Patent trolls aren't just non practicing entities. In my opinion, a patent troll is someone who threatens to sue over a patent, knowing that the defendant can't afford to litigate, even if they know that the patent is invalid or inapplicable.

The bond figure isn't precisely set to cover the penalized company loses if the injunction is overturned afterward? If yes, as I think it is, that industry source claim doesn't make sense. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 being some old model I doubt that they sell many in the US.

You patent complex algorithms that are business-critical. You don't (and should not be able to) patent generic, overreaching software development constructs like "use of a data structure to relay information." That's insanity. That's like patenting breathing through your mouth.

Nowhere does it say patents have to be complex. In fact, the most brilliant of all patents are the ones that are so simple people say "why didn't I think of that" when they see it.

And why is everyone quoting only the "title" of Apple's data tapping patent and forgetting about the detailed explanation of the patent istself?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

FWIW, if/when Google's patent app for the notification bar is approved it probably won't matter where Apple's came from. It may still infringe ( I think most here in AI World just call it stealing. Damn where's that eye-roll smiley when you need it). But that's for some future discussion. By then there may be a cross-licensing agreement in place for all we know.

Do you think the Neonode slide-to-unlock feature qualifies as prior art and therefore invalidates Apple's slide-to-unlock patent, even though they have significant differences?

If so, then you must agree that Google's notification bar patent must also be invalidated since there is significant prior art. Having worked as a software developer since the 80's I've seen numerous "notification" systems that predate both iOS, Android and even Palm.